3RD DRAFT PARKINGGARAGEFEASIBILITYSTUDY

PreparedFor:

PARKINGADVISORYSUBCOMMITTEE

April2011

PreparedBy:

49 West 37th Street 5th Floor New York, New York 10018

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 Introduction Section 2.0 Parking Demand Analysis Section 3.0 Site Alternatives & Preliminary Design Concepts Section 4.0 Financial Analysis (to be completed) Page 1 Page 3 Page 8 Page 18

LIST OF TABLES Table #1 Parking Occupancy Surveys Table #2 Parking Demand Ratios Table #3 Projected Staffing & Enrollment Growth (Fall 2013) Table #4 Projected Parking Demand Increases Table #5 Lot #1 Conceptual Construction Budget Table #6 Lot #2 Conceptual Construction Budget Table #7 Lot #5 Conceptual Construction Budget Table #8 Parking Garage Site Alternates Matrix Table #9 Capital Cost & Debt Service Table #10 Operating & Maintenance Budget Page 4 Page 6 Page 7 Page 7 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 17 Page 22 Page 23

LIST OF FIGURES/PLANS Site Identification Aerial Site Footprint Studies Lot #1 Concept Plans Lot #2 Concept Plans Lot #5 Concept Plans Page 9 After Page 10 After Page 12 After Page 13 After Page 14

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011

SECTION 1.0 - INTRODUCTION

DESMANAssociateswasretainedtoprovideconsultingservicesforWilliamPatersonUniversity(WPU)forthepurpose of performing a Feasibility Study for adding a parking garage on the campus. To accomplish this we completed the followingtasks,workinginconjunctionwiththeUniversitysParkingAdvisorySubCommittee,whichwascomprisedof thefollowing: AdministrationandFinanceVicePresident,SteveBolyai AdministrationandFinanceAssociateVicePresident,RosemarieGenco AdministrationAssociateVicePresident,RichardStomber CapitalProjects,DesignandConstructionDirector,JohnUrinyi CommuterServicesDirector,AllenWilliams PublicSafetyandUniversityPoliceInterimDirector,BobFulleman FacultyRepresentativeRajenderKaur,DepartmentofEnglish PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS Our initial task consisted of updating the supply and demand analysis performed by DESMAN in 2004. This task identified current parking occupancies and the number of parking spaces required to meet the parkingneedsbothtodayandforecasted3yearsforward. Based on the verification of parking space inventory, from data that was provided by the University, DESMAN tabulated the parkingsupplyanddemandonthecampus.Byusingthe demand basedratioscalculated inthe2004 Study,anestimate offutureparkingdemandatWPUwasforecasted. SITE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS Considering the influence of the Universitys goals for this project as well as forecasted parking demand, a number of sites were identified for possible consideration for future parking alternatives. Criteria were developed to evaluate and prioritize alternative sites for future structured parking. Using thesecriteria,parkingsiteswerecomparativelyevaluated.Asaresultofthisprocess,asiteevaluationmatrixwasdeveloped including advantages and disadvantages as measured by identified criteria and summarized in the matrix. A simple rating system of 1 to 3 was incorporated to prioritize parking sites, with the goal of selecting multiple parking sites that will be subjecttoamoreindepthdesignstudyandeconomicanalysis.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 1 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Options were presented and discussed with the Parking Advisory SubCommittee to solicit comments and discuss various advantagesanddisadvantagesofeachpotentialsitesolution.After a number of preferred sites were selected, functional design concepts and preliminary building plans were developed to further investigate and analyze each sites feasibility. Concept Design Documents including Grade, Typical and Roof Plans, were prepared to visualize the followingprojectcomponents: VehicularIngressandEgressLocations. RampingMethods,slopesandlocations. InternalTrafficFlow. ParkingGeometry,includingbaywidths/heights,parkingangleandstallwidths. Perfloorspacecounts. PossibleStair/elevatorlocations. Efficiencyonsq.ft.perspacebasis. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Utilizing Concept Design Drawings and the construction budget that was developed, a financial analysiswasperformedfortheLot1alternatetoassisttheUniversityininvestigatingfundinganddevelopmentrequirements and options. Project costs, including soft costs and associated fees were investigated for two financing options. The first scenariowasdevelopedassumingtheUniversityfundstheprojectthroughtheNewJerseyEducationalFacilitiesAuthority,or another like bonding agency, as a traditional capital improvement project. The second scenario forecasted the project costs and funding requirements if the University entered into a Public Private Partnership (P3), whereby private investment funds wouldbeusedtofinancethedevelopmentandconstructioncosts.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 2 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011

SECTION 2.0 - PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS

The first task of our engagement was to update the supply and demand analysis performed by DESMAN in 2004. This consisted of evaluating the current parking supply in the study area and documenting the existing usage of these spaces to identifyparkingoccupanciesandidentifythenumberofparkingspacesrequiredtomeettheparkingneedsofthecampus. Data regarding current parking inventory was provided by William Paterson University (WPU) and validated during DESMAN field surveys conducted in November in 2003. This data was than compared with recent field surveys that wereperformedbyWPUtounderstandiftherehavebeenanychangesintheparkingoccupanciesandpatternsonthe campus. Parking at WPU is allocated/assigned/restricted to a variety of user groups (students, employees, reserved, handicapped, time restricted, and visitor parking). There are a number of lots found at WPU designed to serve more thanoneusergroup.ScatteredaroundtheUniversitysparkingfacilitiesarereserved,handicappedandvisitorspaces. Presently,reservedspacesareallocatedtothedeans,directors,departmentchairs,policevehicles,etc. During the midday peak period almost 95% of the parking spaces on the main campus were found to be occupied. These occupancy levels are consistent for both the 2003 and 2010 survey data. The Veritans Lot was found to be underutilized for the duration of the survey period. As this lot is the most remote facility serving the Pompton Road areaofcampus,apointtopointshuttlebussystemservesthelotandoperatesalldayanddeliversitsusersinthecore campus area. Without the underutilized Veritans Lot, the parking occupancy during the peak period is 97%. It was observed that students would lineup in the drive aisles of Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 to wait for other students to walk from campus and exit their respective parking space even though there was an abundance of unoccupied spaces in other campusparkingfacilities. The following table illustrates the recorded parking occupancies in both 2003 and 2010. Parking demands have remained relatively constant over that period while student populations have grown by almost 4%. This could be attributed to many factorssuchas: Modifications to the class schedules and/or programs thereby shifting the distribution of student population duringthetraditionalmiddaypeakperiod. Increaseddependenceonpublictransportation. Capacityconstrainedparkingsystem.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 3 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#1 ParkingOccupancySurveys

Location/Facility Lot1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 8 Admissions Lot Visitors Lot Veritans Lot 415 Hamburg Tpk. Total Reported Population Faculty Staff On-Campus Resident Students Commuter Students Lot Capacity 124 284 299 375 1030 874 60 16 37 200 Nov. 2003 Parking Survey 124 313 261 364 1055 862 47 12 15 25 Oct. 2010 Parking Survey 124 237 286 375 1030 857 53 4 34 37 40 3,299 3,078 3,087

370 720 2300 8625

380 746 2630 8730

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 4 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Anecdotally,itmaybeacombinationofalloftheabove,andpresumablyotherfactors.Asplannersitisdifficultandtherefore complicated to estimate parking demand for a constrained parking system since the base factors may not present a true picture of need. Another question that is also asked is that even if it were possible to provide an inventory to meet the unconstraineddemand,isitfeasiblefromanoperational,physical,economicorpolicypointofview? Another important factor that needs to be included is the concept of Practical Parking Capacity. Industry standards suggest that a parking facility is considered to be at full operational capacity when occupancy levels reach 9095%. Once this level is achieved, potential parkers find it difficult to locate an available space. As a result, those individuals must continue to search, creating traffic flow problems and increases in the potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts. Additional considerations include the inefficient use of the facilities (vehicles potentially occupying more than one space), snow storage during winter months, and areas needed for maintenance procedures (cleaning, painting, landscaping, striping, drainage, etc.). The effective and efficient turnover of parking spaces is most successful when the supply of spaces exceeds the peak demand for those spaces by 5%10%. As is common for non urbanuniversitysettings,apracticalcapacityfactorof90%isused.Itisthisfactorthatwerecommendbeusedforthis planningmodelforWilliamPatersonUniversity. ApplyingtheindustryacceptedpracticeofPracticalParkingCapacityandtherecommended90%factorforWPU,under current conditions the parking system is operating at a deficit of approximately 100 spaces if we include the Veritans Lot. It is our understanding that WPU does not own the Veritans Lot so reliance on the facility to provide parking capacity is questionable. Another factor that has diminished the popularity, convenience and use of this lot was the elimination of the dedicated bus service from this facility. Thus for planning purposes, it is our recommendation that the Veritans Lot be excluded from the supply, which historically has not been well utilized or a viable solution. This wouldincreasetheexistingparkingdeficitnumbertoapproaching250spaces,withtheacceptedpracticeofincludeda 90%practicalparkingcapacity. Peak parking demand based ratios for each of the various user groups on campus were developed using the relationship between parking occupancy, population data, and travel characteristics in the 2004 Study. By using the demand based ratios, future growth projections and development activity, an estimate of future parking demand at WPUcouldbeforecasted.Amodelofexistingparkingdemand,vehicleuseandarrivalpatternswasconductedtoassist inforecastingparkingdemandsunderanunconstrainedparkingsystemscenario.Thepopulationbasedestimateswere thencomparedtothesurveysofactualspaceutilizationwiththeresultssuggestingarelativelyaccuratesolution.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 5 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Given the apparent accuracy of this model and presuming its accuracy with respect to individual user groups (faculty, staff, students, etc.), the population to peak parking demand factors could be utilized when assessing the parking demand on the WPU campus as staffing and enrollment levels increase over time. The following table illustrates the factorsthatweredevelopedspecificallyforWPU.

TABLE#2 PopulationtoPeakParkingDemandRatios
(drove&parkedowncar/personsperautopresentduringpeakperiod)

Category Faculty Staff On-Campus Resident Students All Other Students Visitor/Other Demand Ratio 0.54 0.82 0.50 0.24 0.46

Giventhedevelopmentofaccuratepopulationbasedparkingratiosforeachcampususergroup,projectionsforfuture staffing and enrollment could be used to estimate anticipated peak weekday parking demand for the WPU campus. The university has provided projected growth numbers for the next three years on the campus which can be used to forecastparkingneeds.Theforecastedgrowthforthefallsemesterin2013isasfollows:

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 6 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#3 ProjectedStaffing&EnrollmentGrowth Fall2013

Category Faculty Staff On-Campus Resident Students All Other Students Visitor/Other Growth Projection 20 40 370 1400 50

Utilizing the above growth factors and population based parking ratios for these user categories will result in a forecast for addedunconstrainedparkingdemandexpectedonthecampus.Thefollowingtableillustratedtheseforecasts.

TABLE#4 ProjectedParkingDemandIncreases Fall2013

Category Faculty Staff On-Campus Resident Students All Other Students Visitor/Other TOTAL PARKING DEMAND Growth Projection 20 40 370 1400 50 Demand Ratio 0.54 0.82 0.50 0.24 0.46 Parking Space Demand 11 33 185 336 23 588

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 7 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Aspreviously illustratedwiththerecorded2003and 2010surveys,parkingdemandshaveremainedrelativelyconstantover that period while student populations have grown by almost 4%. This could be attributed to many factors such as modifications to the class schedules and/or programs thereby shifting the distribution of student population during traditional midday peak period, increased dependence on public transportation and/or a capacity constrained parking system.Ifweassumethatitwasanythingbutacapacityconstrainedparkingsystem,thenthestudentdemandfactorwould needtobemodifiedslightlytoaccountfortheaddedpopulationgeneratingasimilarparkingdemand. Accountingforanaddedstudentpopulationofapproximately500studentswouldreducethedemandfactortoroughly0.22 spacesperstudentduringthemiddaypeakperiod.Thiswouldinturnreducethedemandforthiscategorytoapproximately 308 spaces with 1400 added students in the Fall of 2013. Therefore for planning and feasibility purposes, the added parking demandsthatcouldbeexpectedwiththeforecastedgrowthinyear2013willapproach530spaces.This,whenaddedtothe existing deficit of 250 spaces with the elimination of the Veritans Lot and when the principal of practical capacity is applied, wouldsuggestaminimumparkingexpansionof750800spacesshouldbeplanned.

SECTION 3.0 - SITE ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DESIGN CONCEPTS

The Parking Advisory SubCommittees goals were to select and evaluate potential sites that would meet the immediate and forecasted parking demands for the campus. The underlying premise was that any expansion would result in the Universitys first structured parking facility. The initial step was to identify viable options, or sites, on the campusthatcouldsupportastructuredparkingfacility.Someofthecriteriausedtoidentifyviablesiteswerethefollowing: Siteavailabilityownership. Siteconditions(subsurfaceconditions,topography,etc.). Sitesize(dimensions). GatewayImpacts. ProximitytoCampusdestinations. Vehicularaccess. Pedestrianaccess. Sharedparkingopportunities. Alternativeplansfordisplacedcarsduringconstruction. Constructionstagingandstorageissues.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 8 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 This deliberation resulted in the Parking Advisory Committee selecting six areas of the campus for further consideration. Theseareas,orsites,wereidentifiedasSite#1(Lot1),Site#2(Lot2),Site#3(St.JosephsWayneHospitaljointuse),Site #4 (Hobart Hall), Site #5 (Lot 5) and Site #6 (Morrison Hall). The following image graphically illustrates these general locationsonthecampus. SITEIDENTIFICATIONAERIAL

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 9 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 The next step in our analysis was to take a closer look at the opportunities at each one of the identified sites on the campus. This was done by incorporating industry practices with regard to parking geometry, functional design requirements and the physical characteristics of each site. Footprints were developed for each of the six locations taking into consideration such items as site conditions, site size and standard parking geometrical requirements, vehicular access and minimizing the displacement of existing parking spaces. This resulted in the placement of garage footprints that wouldrespondtothesegeneralrequirements.Theplacementofthefootprintscouldthenbeconvertedtoparkingcapacities toallowtheCommitteetoassessthevalidityofeachsite. Thefollowingdiagramsillustrateingreaterdetaileachsiteslocationonthecampusandtheresultantparkingfootprintsthat would be feasible. These footprints were then tested against the ability for each site to support the suggested parking requirements/needs,orwhatwouldbethenumberoflevelsneededtoachieveagoalofaddingapproximately900additional spacesonthecampus.Thebuildingmassingwasthencomparedtothesurroundingbuildingsonthecampustoqualitatively measureitsimpact.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 10 of 24

DESMAN

DESMAN

DESMAN

DESMAN

DESMAN

DESMAN

DESMAN

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 The Parking Advisory Committee reviewed the opportunities for each of the sites and reached the following conclusions. In general, floor to floor heights are programmed at 11 feet, and bay widths are 60 feet, which is comprised of an 18 foot deep parking space, 24 foot wide drive/circulation aisle and an 18 foot deep parking. Parking spaceswereassumedtobe9feetwideforthisexercise.A900spaceparkinggaragewouldequateto280,000290,000 squarefeetofbuildingarea. Site#1Lot1BetweenFacilitiesandScienceHallEast o Aestheticallyoneofthebetterlocationsrequiringtheleastamountoffaadearticulation. o Doesnotimpactanyexistingparkingspaces. o Elevators and pedestrian bridges will be required to span from top deck to grade adjacent to the ScienceHall. o TruckaccesstoStudentCenterloadingdockneedstobemaintained. o Thewarehouseandswitchgearwouldneedtoberelocated. o Providesgoodaccesstoandfromthreecampusentrypoints. Site#2Aand#2BLot2 o OptionBwasdeemedtobefunctionallysuperior. o OptionBwouldbemoreeconomicalthanOptionAintermsofcostperspace. o Providesgoodaccesstoandfromthreeentrypoints. o Resultsinthelossofspaceduringconstruction. o Notasclosetocampusdestinationsassomeoftheothersites. Site#3St.JosephsWayneHospitalWestofLot5 o Thetopographyofthissiteischallenging. o Requirestheinvolvementofanotherpropertyowner. o Theheightofnewgaragemayblockexistingsolarpanels. Site#4EastofHobartHall o Buildableareadoesnotappearlargeenoughtomeetprojectedparkingrequirements. o PedestrianbridgecrossingPomptonRoadwouldberequired. o Trafficsafetyisaconcern.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 11 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Site#5Lot5 o Fivelevelstructurewouldberequiredfor800addedspaces. o Resultsinthelossofspaceduringconstruction. o Highlydesirablelocationforcommuters,residents,andStudentCentervisitors. o GoodvehicularaccessfromPomptonRoadandCollegeRoad, o AddedtraffictoEntry4mayneedtobemitigated. o LoadingDockaccessforWayneHallneedstobemaintained. Site#6EastofMorrisonHall o Proximitytocampusdestinationsisquestionable. o Existingtopographycreatesfunctionalandeconomicchallenges. o Buildableareadoesnotappearlargeenoughtomeetprojectedparkingrequirements.

The Parking Advisory Committee completed their review of the opportunities for each of the sites and concluded, basedontheabovefactors,thatSite#1Lot1,Site#2BLot2andSite#5Lot5shouldbeadvancedforfurtherplanning andstudy.Withthe selection ofthesesites,functionaldesignconceptsandpreliminary buildingplansweredeveloped to further investigate and analyze each sites feasibility. Concept Design Documents including Grade, Typical and Roof Plans,werepreparedtovisualizethefollowingprojectcomponents: PossibleVehicularIngressandEgresslocations. RampingMethods,slopesandlocations. InternalTrafficFlow. ParkingGeometry,includingbaywidths/heights,parkingangleandstallwidths. BuildingSections. Perfloorandtotalparkingspacecounts. PossibleStair/elevatorlocationsandconnectionstothecampus. Constructionbudgetswerealsopreparedforeachoptiontoassistthecommitteetoevaluatethealternatives.Budgets werepreparedonasquarefootbasisforthemajordivisionsofwork(i.e.earthwork,foundations,structure,elevators, architecturaltreatment,plumbing,electrical,etc.),usingourinhousedatabaseofcostsforrecentsimilarareaprojects and discussions with contractors and material suppliers. The concept plans and budgets for Lot #1, Lot#2 and Lot #5 areasfollows:

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 12 of 24

DESMAN

DESMAN

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#5 LOT#1CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 13 of 24

DESMAN

DESMAN

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#6 LOT#2CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 14 of 24

DESMAN

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#7 LOT#5CONCEPTUALCONSTRUCTIONBUDGET

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 15 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 The concept designs were presented to the Parking Advisory Committee to discuss the pros and cons of the alternatives. Baselinecosts,parkingefficiencies,siting,floorplansandpotentialtrafficandpedestriancirculationwaspresentedand discussed.Generalobservationsoftheconceptsaresummarizedbelow. Lot1 o VehicularaccesstothisgarageoptionwouldbegainedthroughLots1and2. o AccessroadtoStudentCenterismaintained. o SectionsofPPOoperations:storeroom,saltshed,switchgear,oldboilerplantwouldneedtobe demolishedaspartofthissolution. o Littletonoimpactonexistingparkingcapacity. o Pedestrianbridgeswouldbeneededforcommunicationtothecampus. Lot2 o Thislocationhasbestproximitytoathleticfacilities. o Inordertoachieveprojectedparkingdemandsthissolutionrequiresoneadditionallevel. o VehicularaccesstothisgarageoptionwouldbegaineddirectlyfromthecampuslooproadandLot2. o Pedestrianbridgesaredesirableforcommunicationtothecampus. o Interimlossof130spacesduringconstruction. o Thislocationisfurthestfromtheprimarycampusdestinations. Lot5 o Thisisthelargestalternativewithat358,000grosssquarefeet(GSF)and1,025spaces. o AccesstothisfacilitywillincreasetraffictoandfromEntry4requiringfurtheranalysisandstudyof potentialimpactsandmitigation. o Vehicularentryandexitappearsfeasiblefromtwolocationswhichwillimproveinternalcirculationand maydefineusergroundaccess. o ProximitytotheResidenceHallsisaconcernandprivacyissueswillneedtobeaddressed. o TheSpeertHallloadingdockshouldnotbeaffected. o Interimlossof110spacesduringconstruction. o NJTransitBuscirculationmaybeimpactedand/orrerouted.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 16 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 A site evaluation matrix was developed including advantages and disadvantages as measured by identified criteria and summarizedinthematrix.Asimpleratingsystemof1to3wasincorporatedtoprioritizethethreeadvancedparkingsitesto assisttheCommitteeinevaluatingtheoptions.Eachcommitteememberindependentlycompletedthematrixandtheresults weretabulatedbyDESMANforpresentationtotheCommittee.Thefollowingtableillustratesthetabulatedresultsfromthe Committeescompletionofthematrix. TABLE#8 ParkingGarageSiteAlternativesMatrix
Lot 1 880 Spaces Category 12345678910111213Sizing/Capacity Net Increase in Parking Parking Efficiency Expansion Capability Mixed Use Potential Ability to Accommodate Different Parkers Access from Roadway Network Campus Traffic Flow Pedestrian Connections to Buildings Aesthetic Integration into Campus Compliance with Master Plan Impacts During Construction Economics/Construction Costs TOTAL
880 Net New Spaces

Lot 2 1060 Spaces

910 Net New Spaces

Lot 5 1115 Spaces

1005 Net New Spaces

Definitions:
3 having the largest capacity and 1 having the lowest capacity. 3 having the highest net increase and 1 having the lowest. 3 representing best efficiency in terms of sf per parking space and 1 being least efficient. 3 representing best opportunity for expansion 3 representing best opportunity for alternate uses and 1 offering worst opportunity. . 3 allowing greatest flexibility to accommodate different parkers and 1 having least flexibility. 3 providing most direct connections to external roadway and 1 having least direct. 3 minimizing conflict points and 1 having greatest potential for conflict. 3 providing most direct unencumbered pedestrian route and 1 the least. 3 allowing easiest integration and 1 having the potential greatest impact. 3 adhering to master plan and 1 being least compliant. 3 having the slightest impact and 1 having the greatest. 3 providing the potential for the least cost per space and 1 having the greatest cost per space.

2.0 2.1 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.1 28.1

1.0 1.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.1 1.4 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.6 20.2

3.0 2.9 2.3 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.8 1.4 2.0 27.8

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 17 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 As can seen from the matrix, the conceptual parking improvement developed for Lot 1 has ranked the highest, followed closely by the proposal for Lot 5. The parking improvements preliminarily developed for Lot 2 received a significantly lower rankingthanbothLot1andLot2.Basedontheevaluationofthesixparkingimprovementsitesandconceptualplanningthat wasadvancedforparkingstructuresonLots1,2and5,theParkingSubCommitteereachedaconsensusonrecommending Lot 1 for further consideration, planning and financial analyses. The advantages that the Lot 1 program offered in terms of connections to external roadways, vehicular access and egress within the campus, aesthetic integration on the campus and minimizing the impact on parking capacity during construction were some of the factors that resulted in this recommendation. The results of the campus planning and preliminary design concepts were independently presented to other stakeholder groups by the Vice President of Administration and Finance to solicit feedback and comments. Presentations were made to the Student Government Association Leadership, Finance, Audit and Institutional Advancement Committee, andUniversityCabinet.AconsensusforLot1wasvoicedbyallthreegroups.

SECTION 4.0 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

Utilizing Concept Design Drawings and the developed construction budget using 2011 dollars, a financial analysis was performedfortheLot1programtoassisttheUniversityininvestigatingfundinganddevelopmentrequirementsandoptions. Project costs, including soft costs and associated fees were investigated for two financing options. The first scenario was prepared assuming the University funds the project through the New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority, or another like bonding agency, as a traditional taxexempt capital improvement project. The second scenario forecasted the project costs and funding requirements if the University entered into a Public Private Partnership (P3), whereby private investment funds would be used to finance the development and construction costs. For the purpose of this report, the P3 alternative that is presented isonlyoneofmanyvariationsthatcould haveapplicabilityfor thisproject.Thisexerciseis presentedtoallowthe University to understand possible variations in the cost and annual expenses if the project is funding using traditional tax exempt bonding or private investment. This presentation is qualitative only and final funding requirements cannot be forecasteduntilthedesignisadvancedandadditionalsite,environmentalandgeotechnicalsurveysarecompleted. AssumptionsfortheUniversityfundingscenario,usingstatetaxexemptbondingsources,wereasfollows:

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 18 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 UNIVERSITYFUNDEDANALYSIS 1. PROPOSEDPROJECTLOT1IMPROVEMENT: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 880spaceParkingDeck. 5levelfacility. Contractandhourlyparking. Nootheruses/occupiedareasareplannedaspartoftheproject. Revenuecontrolsystemwillrequireprepayment. Estimatedparkinggarageconstructionschedule: 20months 8.5%ofconstructioncosts 1.8%ofconstructioncosts

EstimatedProfessionalArchitectural&EngineeringDesignFees: EstimatedFeesforUniversityProject/ConstructionManager: Nolandcostsareincludedaspartofthefinancingforthisproject.

The parking garage will be taxexempt financed through the New Jersey Educational Facilities Authority,oranotherlikebondingagency,witha25yearterm. University does not plan any capital contribution to the construction of the parking deck to reduce therequiredBondproceeds. No other sharing of the construction of the parking garage with other funding/financing opportunitiestoreducetheBondamounthasbeenused. EstimatedTaxExemptInterestRate:5.25% Assumedleveldebtpaymentfortermofbond. EstimatedBondCostsofIssuance/InsuranceandUnderwritersDiscount:5.0%ofconstructioncosts ProjectBudgetincludesanallowanceof$350,000fortrafficimprovements.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 19 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Assumptionsfortheprivatelyfundingscenario,wherebytheUniversitywouldhavealeaseagreement,orsomeotherarrangement forpaymenttotheprivatepartnership,arepresentedbelow.TheUniversitywouldeffectivelymakeannualpaymentstotheprivate investmententityforthetermoftheloan,atwhichtimetheimprovementwouldrevertbacktotheUniversity.Forthepurposeof this presentation of costs, it is assumed that even though private investment would be used to secure financing for the project, neitherthelocalorcountyjurisdictionswouldimposerealestatetaxesontheimprovement. PUBLICPRIVATEPARTNERSHIPFUNDEDANALYSIS 1. PROPOSEDPROJECTLOT1IMPROVEMENT: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 880spaceParkingDeck. 5levelfacility. Contractandhourlyparking. Nootheruses/occupiedareasareplannedaspartoftheproject. Revenuecontrolsystemwillrequireprepayment. Estimatedparkinggarageconstructionschedule: 16months 8.5%ofconstructioncosts

EstimatedProfessionalArchitectural&EngineeringDesignFees: DevelopmentFees: 5.0%ofconstructioncosts

ReturnonInvestment(ROI): 10%ofprojectcosts TakeouttermonROI: 7years

Nolandcostsareincludedaspartofthefinancingforthisproject. The parking garage will be financed through private investment, with part or all of the project costs fundedorsecuredbyacommercialloan.Loantermwouldbe20years. University does not plan any capital contribution to the construction of the parking deck to reduce paymentrequirements. No other sharing of the construction of the parking garage with other funding/financing opportunitiestoreducetheprojectcostshasnotbeenused.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 20 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 11. 12. 13. EstimatedTaxableInterestRate: EstimatedLegal&ClosingCosts: 6.50% 2.00%ofconstructioncosts

ProjectBudgetincludesanallowanceof$350,000fortrafficimprovements.

The following table illustrates preliminary capital project costs and annual debt service payments associated with the planned parking improvements on Lot 1, incorporating the abovementioned financial assumptions. The two scenarios were forecasted based on the construction budgets that were prepared in terms of 2011 dollars. As can be seen, the total cost to the University would be slightly higher under a P3 taxable financing arrangement, but the debt would be retiredin20yearsasopposedtotheUniversityfundedtaxexemptoptionof25years. AdditionallytheUniversitywillhaveadditionalcostsintermsofdesignprofessionalsundertheP3delivery.Thesecosts generally come from the University financing the preliminary engineering studies and surveys, environmental studies, geotechnical surveys, traffic surveys and the architectural fees to develop and define the program to a 2530% design effort. Traditionally these costs are nonrecoverable in a P3 financing and delivery and are funded by the owner. We haveincludedacostof$400,000fortheseservices.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 21 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 TABLE#9 CAPITALCOST&DEBTSERVICE

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 22 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Inadditiontotheannualdebtserviceforthecapitalcost,theintroductionofanewparkingfacilityonthecampuswill increase the operational budget for the University to account for added staffing to manage and oversee the garage and costs associated with utility demands, supplies, equipment and maintenance. Operating and maintenance expenses for the proposed Lot 1 facility have been derived based on industryaccepted operating lineitem budgets, Universitysuppliedinformationandourexperiencewithsimilarfacilities. Based on our research and analyses, we estimate for the first full year of operation that the operating budget for a project consistent with the concept plans developed for Lot 1 will be approximately $299,000 with a maintenance budget of $110,000, which includes a reserve for structural maintenance of $44,000. These numbers have been derivedfromthefollowingestimatedlineitembudget. TABLE#10 OPERATING&MAINTENANCEBUDGET

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 23 of 24

Parking Garage Feasibility Study April 2011 Based on our research and analyses, we have presented estimated costs and operating expenses for the construction of a 900space parking facility on Lot 1 of WPUs campus. One scenario waspreparedassumingtheUniversityfundsthe project as a traditional taxexempt capital improvement project. The second scenario forecasted the project costs and funding requirements if the University entered into a Public Private Partnership (P3), whereby private taxable investment fundswouldbeusedtofinancethedevelopmentandconstructioncosts. For the purpose of these analyses, we assumed that WPU would maintain the responsibility of operating and maintaining theparkingfacility,thusresultinginaneutralcostcomparisonforeitherdeliverymethod.WeestimatethattheUniversitys costtooperateandmaintainanew900spaceparkingfacilitysimilartotheconceptplansthathavebeenpreparedforLot1, would be approximately $410,000 during the first full year it is opened. The operating costs and expenses are expected to escalateonanannualbasis. Our analyses for a University bonded taxexempt capital improvement suggest an annual debt service payment of approximately$1.558millionusinga25yearterm.UnderaPublicPrivatePartnership(P3)delivery,wherebyprivatetaxable investmentfundsareusedtofinancetheprojectandconstructioncosts,theannualleaseorloanpaymentbytheUniversity wouldbeapproximately$2.204millioninthefirst7years,assumingatakeoutperiodforthereturnoninvestment,reducing toapproximately$1.905millioninyears8to20.Thus,theUniversityshouldexpectanadditionalexpenseofapproximately $2,000,000to$2,500,000peryeartodesign,construct,operateandmaintaina900spaceparkingfacilityonthecampuson Lot1.The$500,000variationisattributedtotheoptionsinfundinganddeliverymethod.

DESMAN
S S O C I A T E

Page 24 of 24